Comments on: Containment And Deterrence http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/12/15/containment-and-deterrence/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=containment-and-deterrence n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: bobopapal http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/12/15/containment-and-deterrence/comment-page-1/#comment-34577 bobopapal Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:14:37 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/12/15/containment-and-deterrence/#comment-34577 My experience is that mainstream conservatives are more certain that Ahmadinejad is certifiably crazy than that the sun will rise in the east. I find that they have no doubt whatsoever that the Iranians will immediately nuke Israel or the US and then happily go to heaven as martyrs when Israel and the US obliterate them in a counter attack. When I suggest that the Iranians are not necessarily suicidal maniacs, they brush off the notion by citing Ahmadinejad's eager anticipation of the Mahdi's imminent return and the final apocalyptic battle his appearance will trigger. They don't want to take any chances, and sentiments attributed to Ahmadinejad like following don't make it easy to declare him a sane actor: "In a recent speech Ahmadinejad claimed he had documented evidence that the United States invaded Iraq in order to prevent the coming of the awaited Mahdi and stressed that the Iranian people will prepare the grounds for his coming and will form the Mahdi Army." I also believe he claimed a halo of light surrounded him during a speech at the United Nations, which he took as evidence of the Mahdi's presence and support. I think that the Iranians, in spite of Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, have always shown by their actions that they are rational, strategic actors, but he makes it so very easy for the bellicose right to get away with placing the "Kick me I'm Crazy" sign on his back, and presenting him as the poster boy of an insane regime. My experience is that mainstream conservatives are more certain that Ahmadinejad is certifiably crazy than that the sun will rise in the east. I find that they have no doubt whatsoever that the Iranians will immediately nuke Israel or the US and then happily go to heaven as martyrs when Israel and the US obliterate them in a counter attack.

When I suggest that the Iranians are not necessarily suicidal maniacs, they brush off the notion by citing Ahmadinejad’s eager anticipation of the Mahdi’s imminent return and the final apocalyptic battle his appearance will trigger. They don’t want to take any chances, and sentiments attributed to Ahmadinejad like following don’t make it easy to declare him a sane actor:

“In a recent speech Ahmadinejad claimed he had documented evidence that the United States invaded Iraq in order to prevent the coming of the awaited Mahdi and stressed that the Iranian people will prepare the grounds for his coming and will form the Mahdi Army.”

I also believe he claimed a halo of light surrounded him during a speech at the United Nations, which he took as evidence of the Mahdi’s presence and support.

I think that the Iranians, in spite of Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric, have always shown by their actions that they are rational, strategic actors, but he makes it so very easy for the bellicose right to get away with placing the “Kick me I’m Crazy” sign on his back, and presenting him as the poster boy of an insane regime.

]]> By: expertlaw http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/12/15/containment-and-deterrence/comment-page-1/#comment-34569 expertlaw Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:37:26 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/12/15/containment-and-deterrence/#comment-34569 When you're considering a military strike, branding a foreign leader as "crazy" is a pretty effective public relations tool for depicting the leader as both dangerous and not responsive to reason. (It is also expressed or implied that the foreign leader is also "evil".) Sometimes the foreign leader does you the favor of saying things that sound crazy - (as you note) with the measure of "crazy" being that of the nation considering the attack, not the audience to whom the comments are directed. Dangerous, not responsive to reason, evil? What choice is left other than military action? It's as obvious as the weather. When you’re considering a military strike, branding a foreign leader as “crazy” is a pretty effective public relations tool for depicting the leader as both dangerous and not responsive to reason. (It is also expressed or implied that the foreign leader is also “evil”.) Sometimes the foreign leader does you the favor of saying things that sound crazy – (as you note) with the measure of “crazy” being that of the nation considering the attack, not the audience to whom the comments are directed.

Dangerous, not responsive to reason, evil? What choice is left other than military action? It’s as obvious as the weather.

]]>